Oregon...the latest revolt against oppression.

[maxparrish]

Like so many COVID hotspots, grassroots and informal groups of citizens have arisen asserting their right to free. Much to the shock and resentment of many autocratic governors that have declared themselves to be unaccountable, unlimited, and untouchable for as long as they please (using the magic words "of this is a health emergency") the citizen patriots and public interest groups have had enough from their new overlords - they are under the impression that America is supposed to be a free Republic, one that rejected tyranny of the autocratic and royal sovereigns in 1776.

This isn't an arcane issue, its a fundamental challenge to the entire basis of the US Constitution that rejects the legitimacy of any government that operates under the assumption that the "the state" and its officials are the supreme source of divine and legitimate power. At its root, it is a battle between those who believe in the unalienable rights of man and of a government of and by the sovereign people, and those who thrill at bending the knee to a tyrant of absolute rule over a powerless legislature, civil society, community, and family.

Not four months ago the degree of power seized by state governors would have been unthinkable, even in a major national war. Nothing less than a civil war in the union could have begun to suggest that people could be incarcerated in their homes without trial, denied a source of living, arrested for looking at a sunset or for strolling through a park. And never has it been made illegal to go to school, or to go to church, or to give or obtain a haircut.

So far society has yet to confront the full implications of this oppression, both in human rights and in the destruction of civil society. But the recent suit in Oregon by many Churches and others against an arrogant governor is emblematic of this struggle. Like the governors of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (among others) upon expiration of that state's 28 day time limit of the health emergency powers, she (like her peers) simple ignore the elected representatives and decree new powers of unlimited duration (even Hitler had to get permission to have such power by a vote from the Reichstag). And also like her peers, she has mined the law and found highly dubious unspecific "authorization" for her seizure of power so as to negate democracy...not unlike the methods of Maduro in Venezuela.

Mind you, this is not the most fundamental debate (which must be addressed) over Constitutional rights of the individual. But it is over democracy...the right of the people's representatives and signed laws to check the power of the single autocrat that issues whatever "executive orders" and criminal penalties she likes.

So as "liberalism" has now become the ideology of repression and state worship, we must fight... for now in courts and under the law. But if people want their freedoms back, it may well take more violent action - if so, it will be on the head of those who pushed the people too far.

 

[Variant]

Like so many COVID hotspots, grassroots and informal groups of citizens have arisen asserting their right to free. Much to the shock and resentment of many autocratic governors that have declared themselves to be unaccountable, unlimited, and untouchable for as long as they please (using the magic words "of this is a health emergency") the citizen patriots and public interest groups have had enough from their new overlords - they are under the impression that America is supposed to be a free Republic, one that rejected tyranny of the autocratic and royal sovereigns in 1776.

This isn't an arcane issue, its a fundamental challenge to the entire basis of the US Constitution that rejects the legitimacy of any government that operates under the assumption that the "the state" and its officials are the supreme source of divine and legitimate power. At its root, it is a battle between those who believe in the unalienable rights of man and of a government of and by the sovereign people, and those who thrill at bending the knee to a tyrant of absolute rule over a powerless legislature, civil society, community, and family.

Not four months ago the degree of power seized by state governors would have been unthinkable, even in a major national war. Nothing less than a civil war in the union could have begun to suggest that people could be incarcerated in their homes without trial, denied a source of living, arrested for looking at a sunset or for strolling through a park. And never has it been made illegal to go to school, or to go to church, or to give or obtain a haircut.

So far society has yet to confront the full implications of this oppression, both in human rights and the destruction of civil society. The recent suit in Oregon by Churches and others against the governor is emblematic of this struggle. Like the governors of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (among others) upon expiration of the 28 day time limit of the health emergency powers, she (like her peers) decree new powers of unlimited duration (even Hitler had to get permission to have such power from the Reichstag). And also like her peers, she has mined the law and found highly dubious unspecific "authorization" for her seizure of power...not unlike the methods of Maduro in Venezuela.

Mind you, this is not the more fundamental debate (which must be addressed) over Constitutional rights. It's over democracy...the right of the people's representatives and signed laws to check the power of the single autocrat that issues whatever "executive orders" and criminal penalties she likes.

So as "liberalism" has now become the ideology of repression and state worship, we must fight... for now in courts and under the law. But if people want their freedoms back, it may well take more violent action - if so, it will be on the head of those who pushed the people too far.

It was decided by judicial decree, and the ruling was that the governor dosn't have such sweeping power without involving the legislature, so let's not get ahead of ourselves on it being a popular uprising.

 

[Phys251]

Like so many COVID hotspots, grassroots and informal groups of citizens have arisen asserting their right to free. Much to the shock and resentment of many autocratic governors that have declared themselves to be unaccountable, unlimited, and untouchable for as long as they please (using the magic words "of this is a health emergency") the citizen patriots and public interest groups have had enough from their new overlords - they are under the impression that America is supposed to be a free Republic, one that rejected tyranny of the autocratic and royal sovereigns in 1776.

This isn't an arcane issue, its a fundamental challenge to the entire basis of the US Constitution that rejects the legitimacy of any government that operates under the assumption that the "the state" and its officials are the supreme source of divine and legitimate power. At its root, it is a battle between those who believe in the unalienable rights of man and of a government of and by the sovereign people, and those who thrill at bending the knee to a tyrant of absolute rule over a powerless legislature, civil society, community, and family.

Not four months ago the degree of power seized by state governors would have been unthinkable, even in a major national war. Nothing less than a civil war in the union could have begun to suggest that people could be incarcerated in their homes without trial, denied a source of living, arrested for looking at a sunset or for strolling through a park. And never has it been made illegal to go to school, or to go to church, or to give or obtain a haircut.

So far society has yet to confront the full implications of this oppression, both in human rights and in the destruction of civil society. But the recent suit in Oregon by many Churches and others against an arrogant governor is emblematic of this struggle. Like the governors of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (among others) upon expiration of that state's 28 day time limit of the health emergency powers, she (like her peers) simple ignore the elected representatives and decree new powers of unlimited duration (even Hitler had to get permission to have such power by a vote from the Reichstag). And also like her peers, she has mined the law and found highly dubious unspecific "authorization" for her seizure of power so as to negate democracy...not unlike the methods of Maduro in Venezuela.

Mind you, this is not the most fundamental debate (which must be addressed) over Constitutional rights of the individual. But it is over democracy...the right of the people's representatives and signed laws to check the power of the single autocrat that issues whatever "executive orders" and criminal penalties she likes.

So as "liberalism" has now become the ideology of repression and state worship, we must fight... for now in courts and under the law. But if people want their freedoms back, it may well take more violent action - if so, it will be on the head of those who pushed the people too far.

Just as I posted about mere minutes ago. The open condoning of terrorism by the far-right.

The murderous pseudoscience of "herd immunity"
If those people want to act like terrorists, then they should be treated as such. That's justice. :usflag2:

 

[OrphanSlug]

Great, another “freedom” thread... forget science and medicine, looks like we are going with more bumper sticker thinking from “conservatives.”

 

[maxparrish]

Just as I posted about mere minutes ago. The open condoning of terrorism by the far-right.

The murderous pseudoscience of "herd immunity"
If those people want to act like terrorists, then they should be treated as such. That's justice. :usflag2:

That's what those on the side of King George believed as well, i.e. the loyalists to royal oppression. And while we are not at that stage...yet...we are certainly at the stage of civil disobedience, protest, and passive resistance against the wheels of the state. And when in the course of human events it becomes intolerable, people have a right to liberty...if necessary through violent revolution.

If you don't want to get to that stage, best you listen to the people's elected representatives and join them in opposing unilateral power of "the leader".

 

[Phys251]

That's what those on the side of King George believed as well, i.e. the loyalists to royal oppression. And while we are not at that stage...yet...we are certainly at the stage of civil disobedience, protest, and passive resistance against the wheels of the state. And when in the course of human events it becomes intolerable, people have a right to liberty...if necessary through violent revolution.

If you don't want to get to that stage, best you listen to the people's elected representatives and join them in opposing unilateral power of "the leader".

In other words, if the government doesn't do what you want, you believe that terrorism is a justified response. Thank you for making my point for me.

Oh yeah, and I stand by what I said should be done with people who commit literal terrorism.

P.S. Your president wants to be "the leader." Yet I don't see you calling for his removal from power. :shrug:

 

[maxparrish]

Great, another “freedom” thread... forget science and medicine, looks like we are going with more bumper sticker thinking from “conservatives.”

Ya...that 'nasty' thing called freedom - makes one wonder why you don't live somewhere that it is in even shorter supply: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe.

There are plenty of places where your ideological hatred of freedom is welcome.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Ya...that 'nasty' thing called freedom - makes one wonder why you don't live somewhere that it is in even shorter supply: Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe.

There are plenty of places where your ideological hatred of freedom is welcome.

The frontier days are over, time to grow up and join modern times.

And no one is advocating for us to become like those nations, despite what FoxNews tells you.

 

[Chomsky]

Like so many COVID hotspots, grassroots and informal groups of citizens have arisen asserting their right to free. Much to the shock and resentment of many autocratic governors that have declared themselves to be unaccountable, unlimited, and untouchable for as long as they please (using the magic words "of this is a health emergency") the citizen patriots and public interest groups have had enough from their new overlords - they are under the impression that America is supposed to be a free Republic, one that rejected tyranny of the autocratic and royal sovereigns in 1776.

This isn't an arcane issue, its a fundamental challenge to the entire basis of the US Constitution that rejects the legitimacy of any government that operates under the assumption that the "the state" and its officials are the supreme source of divine and legitimate power. At its root, it is a battle between those who believe in the unalienable rights of man and of a government of and by the sovereign people, and those who thrill at bending the knee to a tyrant of absolute rule over a powerless legislature, civil society, community, and family.

Not four months ago the degree of power seized by state governors would have been unthinkable, even in a major national war. Nothing less than a civil war in the union could have begun to suggest that people could be incarcerated in their homes without trial, denied a source of living, arrested for looking at a sunset or for strolling through a park. And never has it been made illegal to go to school, or to go to church, or to give or obtain a haircut.

So far society has yet to confront the full implications of this oppression, both in human rights and in the destruction of civil society. But the recent suit in Oregon by many Churches and others against an arrogant governor is emblematic of this struggle. Like the governors of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (among others) upon expiration of that state's 28 day time limit of the health emergency powers, she (like her peers) simple ignore the elected representatives and decree new powers of unlimited duration (even Hitler had to get permission to have such power by a vote from the Reichstag). And also like her peers, she has mined the law and found highly dubious unspecific "authorization" for her seizure of power so as to negate democracy...not unlike the methods of Maduro in Venezuela.

Mind you, this is not the most fundamental debate (which must be addressed) over Constitutional rights of the individual. But it is over democracy...the right of the people's representatives and signed laws to check the power of the single autocrat that issues whatever "executive orders" and criminal penalties she likes.

So as "liberalism" has now become the ideology of repression and state worship, we must fight... for now in courts and under the law. But if people want their freedoms back, it may well take more violent action - if so, it will be on the head of those who pushed the people too far.

I hate to destroy your argument in one quick fell swoop, but you premise it upon the "power of governance derives from the governed".

Well, several hundred or even several thousand protesters is such an infinitesimally scant number in relation to the many millions that do not protest, that it is clear to me that by your premise our local governance is doing just fine!

We just have a few hundred or few thousand bad apples.

You need a better premise, one that fits your scenario.

 

[Cardinal]

Freeeeeeduuuuummmmmmb!

 

[AlphaOmega]

Just as I posted about mere minutes ago. The open condoning of terrorism by the far-right.

The murderous pseudoscience of "herd immunity"
If those people want to act like terrorists, then they should be treated as such. That's justice. :usflag2:

Fighting a tyrannical government is exactly what the second amendment was written for. To call people fighting tyranny, terrorists is imbecilic.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Freeeeeeduuuuummmmmmb!

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[maxparrish]

In other words, if the government doesn't do what you want, you believe that terrorism is a justified response. Thank you for making my point for me.

Oh yeah, and I stand by what I said should be done with people who commit literal terrorism.

P.S. Your president wants to be "the leader." Yet I don't see you calling for his removal from power. :shrug:

Please point out where I supported "terrorism"? Unless you think all violent action against the ruling state is the definition of "terrorism" then no, I don't support terrorism.

Moreover my criteria for personal violent action requires EXACTLY what our founders required:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, …

When either the King of England or Governor Brown without the consent of the governed becomes destructive to the rights of liberty and continue with a long train of abuses and usurpations, one that evinces a design of absolute despotism it is the people's right AND duty to throw off such government.

You call that "terrorism", I call that the most magnificent event in Human History...the Declaration of Independence.

 

[danielpalos]

Businesses can contribute to our economy by upgrading their air filtration systems in public accommodation.

 

[maxparrish]

The frontier days are over, time to grow up and join modern times.

And no one is advocating for us to become like those nations, despite what FoxNews tells you.

Your being an advocate for soft totalitarianism is not persuasive.

 

[Cardinal]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

People who can't wrap their heads around the idea that maybe they shouldn't endanger other people are why laws exist. That whole "social contract" thing just isn't clicking for them.

 

[Izzy]

So as "liberalism" has now become the ideology of repression and state worship, we must fight... for now in courts and under the law. But if people want their freedoms back, it may well take more violent action - if so, it will be on the head of those who pushed the people too far.

I'm sorry are you being forced into you're cozy little house at gun point? These people getting arrested for going to the park, could you send me the link to these articles so I can see how long they were put in federal prison. Most people are getting fined at the most. 92,000 people have died and the main focus here are the two to three people getting detained a little while?

School isn't canceled, they took online class. More than half of america wants to stay working from home after this is over, so how are you gunna pretend most people are as whiny as you? This a long vacation for anyone in the middle class. The only injustices this has pointed out are how the government would rather spend money on the rich than the people, and the money it takes to survive this country for a month just happens to be more than a lot of people are getting.

You shouldn't be trying to get random liberals killed with "violent action," you should be aiming at the administration that would rather pay off wall street than help it's citizens not drown in saliva. We could have avoided this lock-down if we had responded properly, but you would rather give up than improve the situation. If letting hundreds of thousands of people die rapidly would have been better for the economy than some paid vacation or maybe just some god damn testing, then you live on Mars. When people die fast the economy go poo-poo, so please don't pretend trying to stop a deadly virus is less important than your boring job.

We all want to go back to work, but we would rather keep our old and sick family members alive. That shouldn't have been an ultimatum in the richest nation on earth.

Also who are the people who pushed too far? The people trying to live or the people who could have done something but didn't? All this anti-lockdown bs is completely misguided. We could have avoided a lockdown but it's too late to just pretend everything is fine.

If you really think this lockdown is such a nightmare than please tell me about your safe alternative. Because I'm not going to get a haircut until I feel safe, most people won't. Those businesses we need to open won't have any customers if we don't have a plan in place, which we currently don't. Sorry not everybody is as willing to sacrifice our friends and family, but surely you have a plan that might convince us that your precious hair salon is safe to visit.

 

[trixare4kids]

People who can't wrap their heads around the idea that maybe they shouldn't endanger other people are why laws exist. That whole "social contract" thing just isn't clicking for them.

You don't demonstrate that you care about laws being upheld when you've gone on record for giving lawbreakers, illegal immigrants CA. stimulus money.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Great, another “freedom” thread... forget science and medicine, looks like we are going with more bumper sticker thinking from “conservatives.”

Science and medicine cannot answer political questions

When the arm of the state is being used to impose a scientific worldview, that becomes a political question

 

[EMNofSeattle]

People who can't wrap their heads around the idea that maybe they shouldn't endanger other people are why laws exist. That whole "social contract" thing just isn't clicking for them.

I never signed any social contract giving you a right to not get sick

 

[AlphaOmega]

People who can't wrap their heads around the idea that maybe they shouldn't endanger other people are why laws exist. That whole "social contract" thing just isn't clicking for them.

Who says we are endangering other people? If you are worried stay home and bolt the doors and windows. The rest of us will move on. Your sides problem is you want this to go on indefinitely. If you guys want to start a civil war...this is a fantastic way to start one.

 

[AlphaOmega]

You don't demonstrate that you care about laws being upheld when you've gone on record for giving lawbreakers, illegal immigrants CA. stimulus money.

So...so spot on!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Your being an advocate for soft totalitarianism is not persuasive.

"soft totalitarianism"... oh, do tell us what that means to you.

 

[maxparrish]

I hate to destroy your argument in one quick fell swoop, but you premise it upon the "power of governance derives from the governed".

Well, several hundred or even several thousand protesters is such an infinitesimally scant number in relation to the many millions that do not protest, that it is clear to me that by your premise our local governance is doing just fine!

We just have a few hundred or few thousand bad apples.

You need a better premise, one that fits your scenario.

But I don't hate to point out that a close reading of my arguement is not based on a single premise, or a few hundred or thousand protestors as a confirmation of democratic legitimacy.

First, as noted many governors (except Brown in Oregon) are being sued by THEIR OWN LEGISLATURES. Moreover, those filing the suits are predicated on the power and consent of the people, through their legislatures, to make laws, which are supposed to be executed by an executive.

Refuse to enforce those laws and refuse to obtain the consent of the governed is not local governance "doing just fine".

In sum: "so far society has yet to confront the full implications of this oppression, both in human rights and in the destruction of civil society. But the recent suit in Oregon by many Churches and others against an arrogant governor is emblematic of this struggle. (over consent)" even if "this is not the most fundamental debate (which must be addressed) over Constitutional rights of the individual."

Second, it is a battle between those who believe in the unalienable rights of man as well as for a government of and by the sovereign people, (versus) those who thrill at bending the knee to a tyrant of absolute rule over a powerless legislature, civil society, community, and family. Inotherwords, this is a conflict between those who believe in human rights as well as in democracy, versus those whose actions are inimical to either of those ends.

This, at the moment, in the courts the battle is over the consent of the governed as established in action and law. However, a more fundamental issue is that regardless of the consent, people have constitutional rights that supersede even majoritarian wishes (e.g. freedom of assembly).

Even a few hundred "bad apples" have unalienable rights to liberty - an issue that is not yet ripe but will be.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Science and medicine cannot answer political questions

When the arm of the state is being used to impose a scientific worldview, that becomes a political question

^^^ You read it there first, above. ^^^

Forget science and medicine, or really anything from process... politics matters most to "conservatives."